I finally got around to seeing Bowling for Columbine. It’s rather odd that it took so long considering it’s been sitting around the house for awhile (actually, I bought it as a present for my dad for some occasion or another) and I absolutely loved his work in Roger & Me. Personally I felt more affected by Roger & Me as the slow descent of the town of Flint into poverty is absent of the loud, punctuated climax of gun violence. Regardless, I found the piece to be brimming with the poignant satire & bleak comedy that I love in his work.
Since I’m in a contemplative mood at the moment, I’m going to write a bit of a response to Shane’s post on eugenics. I think it sets a dangerous precedent when a society attempts to put controls on reproduction. While it’s not entirely analogous, restrictions on reproduction in China led to the extermination of female children in favour of sons who would make better labourers & would not cost the family a dowry when the time came to marry her off. The “stupidist” idea is impractical & highly susceptible to corruption if implemented as a legal control. First is the issue of standardization. Who can we trust to form a sound & objective opinion on this matter? What tests could be administered to evaluate one’s fitness as a parent? IQ tests really have no bearing on one’s capabilities as a parent & most good psychological theory is only predicative of behaviour about 30% of the time. This leaves most of our assessment to an after the fact evaluation which renders eugenics completely useless. Another concern is enforcement. Castration? It would be the most effective but it’s probably too severe. Depression & suicide is quite common in current cases so it carries a weight not much less than a death sentence. Procedures such as vasectomies & tube tying would not diminish quality of life in such a dramatic way but these are reversible & in an age where couples shell out exorbitant amounts on fertility treatments both these & fines could prove ineffectual. At best we can offer a system that takes needed finances from a family that already has financial strain in its future. Now it’s not that I disagree with the sentiments expressed about unfit parents but eugenics can in no way act as a substitute for proper education on these matters. Certainly the programs in place are inadequate for the purpose of eradicating issues of poor parenting but I believe that it is the proper direction.
Ahem. That is all I have to say about that. Until I receive some responses that is…
FLAME WAR, HO!
Now I’ll treat you to something a little lighter. I have unexpectedly had the entire week off due to the lack of a job that is ready for us to tackle. As such, I have spent much time lying around playing Disgaea. So to conclude this post I will provide you with a prinny.
CAUTION: EXPLODES WHEN THROWN
This is my disgusted reaction:
ReplyDeleteAt first I was like: lol, he's taking it seriously, but then at the end when you talked about proper education I started thinking that ya... that actually might work... did you know some people in Michigan (I forget where exactly but we looked at them in Anthopology class) in a ghetto somewhere SERIOUSLY believed that a woman was not able to conceive if she wasn't menstruating because the uterus was 'closed' during that time. head/desk
How do you educate the unwilling?
ReplyDeleteFirst the best way you can institute a law against it is by proving that people are unfit to be parents. We take away kids all the time right now. It would seem prudent to take it a step further and simply render the offenders sterile so that they may not further breed children they can't care for. Most specifically men who have children with several mothers and can't pay child support.
Often times people will have children for cash benefits. Most noticeably if they are already on welfare or other social assistance programs. This of course is a very ill conceived notion as it leads the children to be neglected so the parents can spend the baby bonus on themselves. We can use this to our advantage. Pay people to have these operations done. It does seem a tad strange but when you offer a large lump sum, the poor and uneducated will be the most likely to do it because they are where they are as a result of not being able to think long term. All those baby daddy's out there who don't want kids can be paid not to. It would stop a lot of unwanted children from being born.
There is of course no proper way to determine before hands if someone is "to stupid for children" what they do with their kids could be a good indicator. There are ways to control the stupid and poor by playing on what they want... money.
As a final interesting thought... Should people with std's that could be passed on to their children be sterilized? I would not wish for any babies to be born with aids...
Educating the unwilling is always an issue of course. I'm not going to pretend to know a proper solution to this but I find it incredibly arrogant to think that any meaningful difference can be made by offering cash incentives. This only creates a means with which to further punish poverty. In the case of someone having children to take advantage of the added welfare money, I think it would be prudent to eliminate added benefits for children not born or in utero at the time welfare is applied for. Deadbeat dads are an issue as well and not easily solvable. In such cases it may hold more weight if they were treated as criminal offences rather than or in addition to civil. As for sterilizing people with STD's, it's hard to say. It presents an the interesting issue of transforming a healthcare issue into a legal issue. On one hand, these individuals should be abstinant and those who have an ethical mindset questionable enough to reproduce in these circumstances deserve punishment. On the other, is it right to punish those who have contracted the disease and are responsible in their treatment of it after the fact? Certainly such individuals are capable of autoeroticism and disabling the necessary organs has a significant impact on the levels of hormones vital to functioning as a proper human being. I have no clear answer but I'd tend toward the non-sterilization route as it does not punish guilty of nothing other than becoming sick.
ReplyDeleteI hope this addresses your concerns.
Is that chick sitting on a bird's head?
ReplyDeleteYup. Being a prinny is a rather thankless job.
ReplyDelete